God did not create the universe, says Hawking...

arq

know1 wrote:

If Hawking says it, I guess it must be true.

Maybe Hawking is God himself...

That could explain a couple of things :think:

acoustic guy

theserialthrilla wrote:

read the first three lines and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ROLFLMAO!!!

acoustic guy

I think Hawking's is an Alien Breed.

Eilian

-

arq

Eilian wrote:

arq wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

And until this day i haven't seem any proof of god, and I'm not talking about "the miracle" of birth, the sunsets, or any other bogus "miracle" with every new discovery a little piece of "god" just vanish.

Edit: SCIENTIFIC claims require evidence.

Without evidence, and please accept that theories detailing the generation of the universe, and even the evolution of observable species are evidence light, if not void, science is guilty of everything it claims to hate religion for. In the absence of evidence, science, unlike religion cannot be afforded the luxury of faith, or even subjectivity.

Not one to stifle anybody's intellectual curiosity, I fear that theories based upon multi billion year old environments that are firstly, speculation, and secondly and as a consequence, impossible to recreate are impossible to test and will forever remain speculative.

With this ringing in my ears I find it pathetic that the most renowned minds of our time seem so insistent on catagorically disproving the existence of something beyond themselves as if attempting to cement their position as the cleverest in nature.

It (whatever you want call it) cannot be proved, nor disproved.

WOW :wtf: Well my friend religion is always looking for that kind of response... church is waiting for you

markin ball

Eilian wrote:

arq wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

And until this day i haven't seem any proof of god, and I'm not talking about "the miracle" of birth, the sunsets, or any other bogus "miracle" with every new discovery a little piece of "god" just vanish.

Edit: SCIENTIFIC claims require evidence.

Without evidence, and please accept that theories detailing the generation of the universe, and even the evolution of observable species are evidence light, if not void, science is guilty of everything it claims to hate religion for. In the absence of evidence, science, unlike religion cannot be afforded the luxury of faith, or even subjectivity.

Not one to stifle anybody's intellectual curiosity, I fear that theories based upon multi billion year old environments that are firstly, speculation, and secondly and as a consequence, impossible to recreate are impossible to test and will forever remain speculative.

With this ringing in my ears I find it pathetic that the most renowned minds of our time seem so insistent on catagorically disproving the existence of something beyond themselves as if attempting to cement their position as the cleverest in nature.

It (whatever you want call it) cannot be proved, nor disproved.

Well said...and you definitely have some good points about however I don't think Hawking was attempting to "disprove" anything as much as saying that God wasn't necessary based on what he and other physicists currently hypothesize. I read the article and the title was a bit sensationalistic, if you ask me.

haffajappa

Eilian wrote:

arq wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

And until this day i haven't seem any proof of god, and I'm not talking about "the miracle" of birth, the sunsets, or any other bogus "miracle" with every new discovery a little piece of "god" just vanish.

Edit: SCIENTIFIC claims require evidence.

Without evidence, and please accept that theories detailing the generation of the universe, and even the evolution of observable species are evidence light, if not void, science is guilty of everything it claims to hate religion for. In the absence of evidence, science, unlike religion cannot be afforded the luxury of faith, or even subjectivity.

Not one to stifle anybody's intellectual curiosity, I fear that theories based upon multi billion year old environments that are firstly, speculation, and secondly and as a consequence, impossible to recreate are impossible to test and will forever remain speculative.

With this ringing in my ears I find it pathetic that the most renowned minds of our time seem so insistent on catagorically disproving the existence of something beyond themselves as if attempting to cement their position as the cleverest in nature.

It (whatever you want call it) cannot be proved, nor disproved.

The Big Bang can be theoreticized through physics and math and logic and what have you... researched and attempted to be proven by at least some form of evidence (studying orbits, for example, and the distances galaxies are moving away from each other).

In no way is this concrete, but its still a step ahead of unbacked faith that someone made the universe in 6 days - and any other belief the church claims that has clearly been disproven as time goes on.

Like I said, it surely isn't absolute (at least I don't believe so) but the beauty of science is that it's not too proud to be disproven.

Cosmo

Eilian wrote:

Edit: SCIENTIFIC claims require evidence.

Without evidence, and please accept that theories detailing the generation of the universe, and even the evolution of observable species are evidence light, if not void, science is guilty of everything it claims to hate religion for. In the absence of evidence, science, unlike religion cannot be afforded the luxury of faith, or even subjectivity.

Not one to stifle anybody's intellectual curiosity, I fear that theories based upon multi billion year old environments that are firstly, speculation, and secondly and as a consequence, impossible to recreate are impossible to test and will forever remain speculative.

With this ringing in my ears I find it pathetic that the most renowned minds of our time seem so insistent on catagorically disproving the existence of something beyond themselves as if attempting to cement their position as the cleverest in nature.

It (whatever you want call it) cannot be proved, nor disproved.

...
True... in a sense...
But, isn't religion simply theories based upon the knowledge of human (men) from the late Neo-lithic Age? Explanations of Sun and Season... crop yield and crop failure... birth and death... it was all attributed to the gods.
Mankind created gods as the explanation of nature. You cannot prove or disprove that Thor controls the weather.
The God found in religion is a creation of Man.

arq

Eilian

-

Cosmo

Eilian wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

True... in a sense...
But, isn't religion simply theories based upon the knowledge of human (men) from the late Neo-lithic Age? Explanations of Sun and Season... crop yield and crop failure... birth and death... it was all attributed to the gods.
Mankind created gods as the explanation of nature. You cannot prove or disprove that Thor controls the weather.
The God found in religion is a creation of Man.

I wouldn't argue a word of that.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the specifics of any one religious doctrine bear up to scrutiny. And I also don't believe that the historical or scientific nuts and bolts of them are exempt from objective examination.

Earlier in this thread you stated that the only thing you know for sure, is that no-one knows. You're bang on the money. What I object to, which mirrors an atheists view of faith i'm sure is the thinnest and most speculative of theories being engineered as untestable and then preached as fact.

The term God shouldn't appear in these scientific headlines and reports nearly as much as it does and I genuinely fear that the hard-on these people have for discrediting faith has already created somewhat of a tunnel vision where theory and research are concerned. We may be just one research paper away from that "Does Thor control the weather" hypothesis.

I'd dearly like to see science avoid the pitfalls of religion is all.

...
Then, we agree in principle... that neither science nor religion is absolute truth. Science attempts to explain Nature through observation and decuction, logical reasoning, mathematics any theoretical laws... whereas Religion attempts to explain Nature (a.k.a., God) using the simple premise, 'Because I said so'.
Example: We are driving in the English countryside and see 10 sheep, grazing on the hillside. Of the 10, nine are white, one is black.
Some people might say, '90% of the sheep in England are white, 10% are black'... while others may say, 'Nine of the 10 sheep on the hillside, nine of them are white, with one being black'. One may sound truer than the other... but it is not necessarily the ABSOLUTE Truth.
The Truth of this observation is, 'Of the 10 sheep on the hillside... nine are white and one is black... on the side that is facing us because we do not know what color they are on the side that we cannot see'.
So, yeah... the only absolute truth about God is... we don't know.

JR8805

Throughout the course of history, human beings have made up thousands of gods in an attempt to understand and explain what we see. They become discarded over the course of time as other explanations come into being, and I believe the same will happen with the current round of gods. The trouble with gods is that they favor brands of humans. This brand protects Greeks against the terrors of the ocean, this brand protects Egyptians from the wrath of the Sun, this other protects some other group. The thing that current religions have over the older religions in staying power is that belief is the binder to the god, not necessarily ethnicity. But that doesn't make the current religions any better than more ethnocentric religions, just longer-lasting.

I don't know if there is a god or not. If so, it's either very self-evident (look around, it's all god), or it doesn't want to be found (look everywhere and other than the signature handiwork, it's nowhere to be found). And if there is a god, it's either very evil (take at look at the hunger and suffering), or it doesn't really care about anything but creating things and having other things its created say, "Awesome!" God is the ultimate, compulsive creative force, something chained to it's addiction of creation and destruction. Whether that is something that should be worshipped is up to you, I suppose. I choose to admire the beauty it creates. But I don't see its servitude to creation and destruction as praiseworthy. It's what it does. I doubt it has any say over it; it just does as it's set to do. And what its set to do are the natural laws. In this universe, the laws are what they are. If there are other universes, the god force there does what it is set up to do. So, is such a thing God? Maybe. But not god the way most people want to make God out to be. There is no just creature overseeing planet Earth. I see better people than me living miserable, short lives in crates on street corners. I see much eviler people than myself living in mansions with millions. I see me, doing relatively well because of the luck of the draw, not because I'm pious or outstandingly good in any respect. The only justice I see is that at the end, it all comes to an end in life. But, what happens from birth until then is hardly justice. So, to me, stories about God are stories of our deepest needs and wants. But, stories don't actually make reality, although they can help people living in misery feel better by thinking of some other life, something else "after." But why should there be justice in a nebulous "after" instead of right now? Omnipotent? Hardly if we have to wait for "after."

arq

JR8805 I approve your message

Eilian

-

Mikeack

Cosmo wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Science is science... Faith is faith
Science is NOT faith... Faith is NOT science
...
You can have both in your life... they are not mutually exclusive.
God and Hawking can exist simultaneously.
...
Not that big a deal... unless you make it a big deal.

not in my world.

...
I guess the 'faith' part I'm talking about is the belief that there is something out there that is greater than ourselves. And faith in... whatever... can comfort us in times of needs... and to help us comfort other in their time of need.
I'm not saying one or the other and a I admit, i have not taken that leap of faith that tell me religion is truth... and i know it will pretty much take a miricle for me to do so.
So, I'll leave it as simply faith... and the knowledge that I don't know... and will never know... while on this side of my death's door.

Modern media portray GOD as being a human like figure, but the true message from ancient times is that God is Everything (The Whole). Many of our religions did not evolve just of a way to pacify the masses living in poverty, but from a need to know what life was that they were leading?
I do not follow main stream religion for this reason (and more)but believe in the Divine that we all can not escape no matter what we think!
Peace

arq

Eilian wrote:

Again, you're right; the only absolute truth about God, but also about the origins of the universe as a whole is,...we don't know, and unless there are some radical breakthroughs in Flux Capacitor technology we're inlikely to get back in time to sample some actual data to objectively work from.

I'm very sorry for my comment, it was a bad attempt to by funny, i misread your comment :oops:

Well humanity used to think about the sun and the moon as gods, and as time goes by maybe today we think that we may never know how the universe started or how started but how many things we used to believed we would never be able to know and well here we are, but how we get there? at the end science doesn't care about holding things sacred the only thing that it cares is understanding.

Eilian

-

markin ball

Eilian wrote:

Again, you're right; the only absolute truth about God, but also about the origins of the universe as a whole is,...we don't know, and unless there are some radical breakthroughs in Flux Capacitor technology we're inlikely to get back in time to sample some actual data to objectively work from.

Cosmic background radiation?

arq

markin ball wrote:

Cosmic background radiation?

Just beautiful!

pandora

As I always see in these debates I see two different types of minds.

The scientific folk who think think think. They believe what they see. They are of logical thought, enjoy learning the newest theories. Everything must have an answer, concrete mind. Knowing is seeing is believing.

Then there are the spiritual folk, not RELIGIOUS necessarily by nature or practice, but who feel their answers. There is a strong belief in a hereafter, a journey the soul is on. This belief brings faith. Faith brings a feel to life that is the answer for them. Feeling is believing.

So we have thinking and we have feeling.

Neither is right or wrong. But both incomplete.

It is with the combination of the two that revelation will come, opening mind and heart.